GEETABAI MEHARAWADE,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GADAG

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2035/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 April 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – (President), SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)8 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested the withdrawal of the appeal via email dated 17-04-2025, citing her opting for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The assessee had also furnished Form 1 issued by the Department and a challan for the payment of Rs. 3,34,688/-. The Ld. AR submitted that the appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn. The Ld. DR did not object to this prayer. After perusing the correspondence and Form 3 issued by the authority, which confirmed the assessee's availing of the VSVS scheme, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The specific grounds of appeal regarding the legality of the CIT(Appeals) order and the levy of penalty were not adjudicated upon as the appeal was withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ms. Geetabai Meharawade, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore, challenging an order of the NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year 2016-17. The assessee, who is uneducated, had initially entrusted her tax matters to a consultant who failed to respond to notices. A new consultant was appointed, and replies were provided. The assessee claimed to be unaware of notices sent to an email ID belonging to the first consultant. The appeal was listed for hearing on 25-04-2025. However, prior to the hearing, the assessee requested the withdrawal of the appeal via email dated 17-04-2025, stating that she had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and had furnished the requisite forms and payment challan for an amount of Rs. 3,34,688/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the learned CIT(Appeals) is illegal, baseless, and opposed to the facts of the case, considering the assessee's uneducated status and reliance on a consultant who failed to respond to notices (Section 271(1)(b) related to penalty). 2. Whether penalty can be levied for the same default more than once under Section 271(1)(b). Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee is uneducated and lacks knowledge of income tax provisions, leading to reliance on a consultant who failed to respond to notices. - The assessee was unaware of notices sent to an email ID belonging to the first consultant. - Penalty cannot be levied for the same default more than once under Section 271(1)(b). Revenue's Contentions: - The Revenue did not object to the assessee's prayer for dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE - & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR

ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 29/08/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2016-17 and raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. The order passes by learned CIT (Appeals) is illegal, baseless and opposed to the facts of the case.

2. As the Assessee is Uneducated, she does not have enough Knowledge of Income Tax Provisions and rules thereon. Hence Assessee had entrusted the work of filing Appeal related form and replying to notices thereon to a Consultant, but the said consultant did not respond to notices thereon. However a new Consultant was appointed and he has provided his reply after discussing with Assessee on 28-10-2023 & 20-12-2023. Hence learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in considering the replies given. As the Assessee is Uneducated she doesnot have any Mail id & Mobile phone, she was unaware of notices sent to the Mail Id mentioned in Form 35. The Mail Id mentioned in Form 35 belongs to consultant to whom the work was entrusted with. The said consultant failed to reply to the notices thereon.

3. Penalty cannot be levied for the same default more than once u/s 271(1)(b) 4. The assessee prays leave to add any more grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

2.

When the appeal came up for hearing we noticed that the assessee filed a copy of email dated 21/04/2025 which reads as under:

3.

The assessee by way of their email dated 17/04/2025 had requested for the withdrawal of the appeal pending before this Tribunal on the ground that the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and also furnished the form – 1 issued by the Department. The assessee also filed the copy of the challan for the payment of the said amount of Rs. 3,34,688/- as directed in form – 2.

4.

The Ld.AR submitted that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed as withdrawn.

5.

We heard Ld D.R, who did not object to the prayer of the assessee. We have perused the said letter and recorded the request made by the assessee. We have also perused the Form 3 issued by the authority from which we came to understand that the assessee had opted to avail the benefit conferred under the VSVS scheme. Recording the said correspondences and the challan, we dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30th April, 2025.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →